Small Steps Toward Smarter Education Spending

The President's FY
2006 budget request eliminates or consolidates funding for
education programs that have achieved their original purposes,
duplicate other programs, may be carried out with more flexible
state formula grants, or involve activities that are better or more
appropriately supported with state, local, or private resources.
While attempts at fiscal responsibility have been rebuffed in the
past, Congress should follow the President's lead this time and cut
ineffective and special-interest programs to help reduce the
deficit and be a better steward of taxpayer dollars.

Table 1 lists the
programs that President George W. Bush's 2006 budget proposes for
elimination.

Many of the
programs proposed for elimination have been unable to demonstrate
their effectiveness. Of the 56 Department of Education programs
rated by the Office of Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) in 2005, 40 either did not demonstrate results
based on the their own stated goals and reported outcomes or were
found to be ineffective.[1]
The President has eliminated funding for many of these ineffective
programs in his budget proposal.

Other evaluations
have cast doubts on these same special-interest programs.[2] Research on the
Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program, for example,
found that most of the models funded under this program are
unsupported by any evidence. And in December 2002, the Center for
Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk (CRESPAR)
reviewed 29 programs funded under the Comprehensive School Reform
program and found that only three of the programs achieved their
stated objectives.[3]
Seventeen-or more than half-of the programs could not produce
enough evidence to be judged as either effective or ineffective.
Moreover, funding for these school-wide programs is already
available under Title I to schools with poverty rates of 40 percent
or higher.[4]

In other cases,
programs are duplicative. For example, states may pay for
activities under the Foreign
Language Assistance, Ready-to-Teach, Star Schools, and National
Writing Project, and other programs with funding fromImproving Teacher
Quality State Grants or the State Grants for Innovative Programs.
The Alcohol Abuse
Reduction program duplicates activities under the Safe
and Drug Free School program. The Perkins Loan program is duplicative of
the Stafford Loan program. Other programs, such as Close Up
Fellowships, which already receive some private funding, could be
completely supported by the private sector. Still others, such as
the Underground Railroad Program, have completed their
missions.[5]

Other programs just do not belong in the
federal budget. For example, the Historic Whaling and
Trading Partners program, which provides over $8 million to museums
and heritage centers for internships and apprenticeships, is not an
appropriate use of federal education tax dollars aimed at improving
academic achievement.[6]

Some programs are
intended for only small groups of students or institutions, and
others have no justification at all. For example, Congress funds
the Women's Educational Equity Act, created to promote "educational
equity for women and girls," even though girls achieve higher
education outcomes than boys on almost every indicator education
excellence.Last fall, the U.S.
Department of Education released yet another report showing girls'
educational success. According to the report, girls equal or
surpass boys in early education and have essentially closed the gap
in math and science. Girlsoutscore boys in both reading and
writing.They are less
likely to repeat grades or engage in risky behavior. Girls are more
likely to graduate from high school and college.[7]

For all these
reasons, the educational programs eliminated in the President's FY
2006 budget do not deserve federal funding. The Republican
congressional leadership has called for the elimination of some of
the same programs as the President-specifically Arts in Education,
Community Technology Centers, Comprehensive School Reform, and the
Javits Gifted and Talented Program. These cuts would be only a
small step toward smarter
education spending. But still, it would be a step in the right
direction.

Krista
Kafer is Senior Policy Analyst for Education, and Jonathan Butcher
is Research Assistant for Domestic Policy, at The Heritage
Foundation.

[1] White House Office of
Management and Budget, Department of Education Program Assessment
Rating Tool 2005, at
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pma/education.pdf

Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) says it's "a great way to start the day for any conservative who wants to get America back on track."

Sign up to start your free subscription today!

Sorry! Your form had errors:

About The Heritage Foundation

The Heritage Foundation is the nation’s most broadly supported public policy research institute, with hundreds of thousands of individual, foundation and corporate donors. Heritage, founded in February 1973, has a staff of 275 and an annual expense budget of $82.4 million.

Our mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. Read More